FRIDAY, JUNE 5, 2020: NOTE TO FILE

The Police State

The state of being policed

Eric Lee, A-SOCIATED PRESS

TOPICS: COMPLEX SOCIETY, FROM THE WIRES, FOR A PRICE

Abstract: Some notes on current events, on narratives of systemic racism coming to a boil. Are all current events a distraction? Perhaps some have a tale to tell that is worth considering. Social pathologies tend to repeat. There are widespread protests and mayhem, but it has more to do with human biology and the dysfunction occasioned by generations of humans of NIMH living the biologically aberrant life. Everything that is and ever was is interconnected. That we humans cannot see the connections doesn't mean they are not the tapestry of the Cosmos we are embedded in as we strut our stuff.

TUCSON (A-P) — I watched the 1951 movie The Day the Earth Stood Still recently and Klaatu notes: 'We of the other planets... have an organization for the mutual protection of all planets and for the complete elimination of aggression. The test of any such higher authority [e.g. the United Federation of Planets] is, of course, the police force that supports it.... Their function is to patrol the planets in spaceships like this one and preserve the peace. ln matters of aggression we have given them absolute power over us. This power cannot be revoked. At the first sign of violence, they act automatically against the aggressor. The penalty for provoking their action is too terrible to risk... The result is we live in peace without arms or armies secure in the knowledge that we are free from aggression and war.'

There may be other solutions to tribalism, but his United Federation of Planets (or whatever he called it) came up with one that works. And it is not a political 'solution' as there are none. All politicians in the world can sign a solemn pledge of peace, love, and eternal beatitude (and to reduce CO₂ emissions) in the name of all their people, but with no enforcement....

The price of complex society, aka civilization (which Earthlings have yet to make work), is a police state. If you long for anarchy, a state of absolutely no police force, think about living in a self-sufficient community of 20 to 80 others (Dunbar's number is a maximum), i.e. a band of humans living in nature, but largely, if not completely, isolated from others. You may occasionally kill each other, but no police or prisons involved (i.e. to avoid hierarchy, do not live in a complex society).

If all civilizations that are sustainable need to be protected and served by a police force, then, as 'we of the other planets have long accepted', Earth needs a police state (a state of being policed) too. Whether you or I like the idea (the what-is) is irrelevant if we end up burning our cities while unsustainably over exploiting planetary resources (which was Klaatu's issue in the 2008 remake).

One concern is what 'higher authority' does the police force serve with absolute power over us? The planetary life-support system? The short-term self interests of all humans (e.g. democracy where everyone can vote their short-term self interest)? Mainly the short-term self interests of those currently in power? If so, then those who want to be in power, (e.g. those of the Far Right or Far Left who are completely outside the Overton window of policy makers/voters), want to disband/defund the police who limit their violence (revolution being the only way they could come to power). And they all have narratives that justify everything they do and intend to do.

Tribal animals seek consensus. My tribe is better than any tribe that potentially posses a threat. United we stand, divided we fall to competing tribes. Millions of years pass. The name for our tribe is The People in whatever language we speak—we the chosen ones all wear white feathers in our hair. Other tribes falsely believe they are human. We know (deep down) that we are all that matters. Our narratives are true. Other competing narratives are not, so having a shared narrative, a consensus, is selected for and has been since the beginnings of perception.

Per current buzz, the Left leaning narrative that systemic, institutional racism is getting worse has been simmering for decades as it takes time for a lie to be told often enough to become unquestionably true (Americans now are less racist than in 1965 when they were less racist than in 1865). Racist ideology, however, has gotten worse as that's what politicizing the issue does. The fruits of political rhetoric are now being served steaming hot in democrat run cities nationwide. 'Black lives matter' is a narrative. 'Race is a crock of shit' is another. Both cannot be true. Color-think is a pathology (i.e. 'a crock of shit).

The belief in systemic racism magnified is color-think. America was engulfed in Right leaning color-think mid-20th century with the Red Scare. There were red commies everywhere, red in tooth and claw, who needed to be exposed, ousted or executed (e.g. the Rosenbergs). We are seeing a form of pathology as MaCarthyism once manifested, merely Left leaning this time.

So a similar socio-political pathology is unfolding today, as those who do not learn from history repeat it. There are differences. We call our Brown Shirts (who firmly opposed the commie fascists trying to take over Germany) 'Antifa' (short for antifaschistisch, who excel at obfuscation).

That the police are hopelessly racist and need to be disbanded/defunded is a narrative unquestioningly accepted by as many or more than were seeing Reds everywhere just seventy years ago. The datum to stick in your pipe and smoke on is that with one exception, all cities that are burning have democratic mayors, true believers in their tribal narratives, who understand their citizen's need for daily 'venting' (another narrative), make allowances for the looting, arson, murder and mayhem. They effectively restrain and limit police response. So is this crisis of civilization due to 'rampant and racist police repression' and 'entrenched institutional racism', or the perception of it? I don't know, same outcome either way.

Ideological polarization? How's that working to make America great again? Are health care resources equitably distributed In America? That high melanin people, who have higher rates of diabetes, asthma, hypertension, kidney disease, and obesity in the US (and more live in densely populated areas and housing, rely on public transport, and work in lower paid service jobs with no sick pay), are several times more likely to die of COVID-19 that than those having fewer risk factors, is proof of 'structural racism' (or something). Or is the medical care system racist? Are doctors and nurses who allow 3-5 times more blacks to die of COVID-19 hopelessly racist servants of a racist society?

Is structural racism the extension and legacy of a global imperial system based on the exploitation of others (including other species)? Yes, point of fact, but is this as intended by policy makers and police who are trying to figure out how to bring back slavery?

There are other narratives. Some begin, 'It's complicated, I probably don't know enough to have an opinion, but maybe...'.

Antifa, who only acts violently in self-defense (another narrative), notes the implied permission. The narrative of a racial divide serves extremists of both the Far Right and Left. A race war is their dream come true (each side has the same narrative—we win) and they are instigating civil war—payoff for decades of work sowing seeds of hate and blame, justification, victimhood and entitlement.

There may be peaceful protest by day, but after curfew the demographics change. Antifa shows up with bats, rocks, 2x4s, and incendiary devices (and rhetoric to inflame). Those who stay are those who want to be part of the rioting to come, as intended by provocateurs. Ironically, it is citizens of Left leaning progressive liberal communities (e.g. Long Island line to gun shop), who are not Far Left, that are lining up at gun stores because the narrative of 'I don't need a gun, I can just call the police' isn't working in communities near them.

The narrative that all Right leaning are racists, opposed by all members of the one true tribe (Leftists), has become a consensus narrative and therefore 'true'. Both sides tell stories, delusional and self-serving ones. Historians will have as hard a time finding the racists as they did finding the communists who were everywhere in the 1950s. That communists were everywhere was widely believed in and delusional. Pathologies happen.

I had a long line of ancestors who were featherists. They were storytelling animals: The only good people, We the People, wear a white feather in our curly black hair. We are the White tribe. Neighbors, mostly tolerated, wear a black feather in their blond hair. They are the Blacks. Sometimes they seem human. We have some narratives in common. We both know the Reds, whose narratives explain why they should kill all Whites and Blacks on sight (they think we are rapaciously driven by a craving to eat them), are evil and jealous pretend humans who must pay for their sins (there are over a 100 of us and we will fight the Reds until justice is served!!!—but they do have their good qualities when properly cooked). I'm not a featherist, though my grandpa was, but for some reason I like white feathers (micro-featherism?)—an example of structural featherism.

Extremists of every sort on the Left and Right want to destroy the system to somehow for sure replace it with a new world that celebrates them as liberators and begs them to rule while promising to serve them. The contending between the tribal Right and Left is the current system that pursues growth for its own sake. Extremists can envision destroying the system (their goal), but their visions of its replacement, from no government to a global Caliphate, are delusional. Even if achieved, for a time, they won't make complex society work, i.e. never have.

Imagine a war. Imagine you win. That's as far as most clothed apes can think. Conflict, us vs them thinking, is a race to the bottom without a viable plan to rebuild. We have been repeating the outcome for about 10k years per the past lives of humans on the planet Earth. Klaatu were are you? Could what happened to the Indus Valley Civilization happen globally?

I have envisioned a sustainable ecological civilization and it is a police state having absolute global power over all humans to limit their freedom. The higher power the police serve is the United Federation of Watersheds that listens to Nature (who has all the answers as to what works). Humans don't get a vote.

By all that we consider natural and normal, Klaatu was not. He was not an ideologue, a true believer. He asked us to give up one freedom, 'the freedom to act irresponsibly'. We prefer to burn our cities when not eviscerating a planet because we truly believe in our narratives, then after collapse and some centuries of recovery, to repeat the pattern.

Mount Rushmore was completed in 1941 by a white American sculptor who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. It desecrates a site in the Black Hills known as The Six Grandfathers, a millennia-old site that was and still is sacred to the Lakota Sioux, Cheyenne, Omaha, Arapaho, Kiowa and Kiowa-Apache tribes. It features four white men, two were slave owners, and one kept a beautiful black woman as a sex-slave. It celebrates white supremacy.

Should it be destroyed? If you don't think so, you are a racist. When the revolution comes, you will have to be put against a wall. Or consider working tirelessly to de-establish the white-supremacist, idolatrous power structure and its racist symbols NOW! BLM.

Antifa: Their will be done on Earth if not in Heaven.

8/10/2020, Note to file: My wife self-identifies as antifa, which is why I've spent more time than I might otherwise looking into the history and recent history (i.e. current events) of their activities and ideological certitudes. It also increased the probability of my attending a Black Lives Matter protest and march to the City Hall of Coos Bay as she brought to my attention a local self-appointed BLM leader whose Facebook page I had been following and so had planned to go to the protest whether she did or not. For me, going was, however, more of an anthropological outting as I am not a tribal member.

For about three hours I was surronded by several hundred people who all agreed that Blacks Lives Matter. The near non-stop chant and cant (with a bit of rant) seemed to thrill and fill participants with ecstatic pleasure. There were also speeches ranging from the passionate to the provocateur's orgasmic ejaculations which gave me no pleasure. I came to realize I am different as I seem unable to form or embrace tribal identity memes.

I realized that if I was put in a dungeon, referred to only as 'cracka', and told to write one essay everyday with a different answer to the question 'whose lives matter?' (this was the only question I heard chanted, always followed by one answer everyone else seemed to know as if from birth) and told that if I didn't come up with the correct answer in the first 100, that I would be terminated with extreme prejudice. So if 'black lives matter' is the correct answer, I would be dead in about 100 days as that answer would never occur to me.

If one of my jailers, who confessed that for a cracka that I really wasn't that bad, told me what the answer was, I couldn't explicate why, as racist ideology escapes my ability to think in terms of. If told the answer was 'black lives matter', I would end up guessing that chemosynthetic sulfur reducing bacteria at black smoker hydrothermal vents, that serve as primary producers for vent ecosystems, mattered. If forced to reference humans, I'd think about high melanin skin in areas of high UV radiation and heat such that not wearing cloths was adaptive between the tropics, but such variation is just-so details that vary with regional populations of many species that some biologists may reference using the informal term 'race' having zero political implications.

If I had to reference color I'd go with Green Lives Matter, i.e. green plants matter as primary producers of virtually all of the biosphere's ecosystems, hence green lives support the mostly parasitic/mutualist animal forms, such as humans (some of whom have red hair suggesting Neanderthal ancestry, but so what?).

In terms of 'whose lives matter', why would anyone, with the possible exception of humans, think that human lives matter? Well, as a memetic species we could evolve to be to the biosphere (Gaia) what our brains are to our bodies. We could, as Earth Guardians, help with the Nature restorancy made necessary by Anthropocene enthusiasts (if we could change). Speciation (to replace the massive species extinction of the Anthropocene) could take 10 million years, but could take less if humans come to understand and learn to live with the planet properly (i.e. change, learn to dance with the system). If we should ever get right with Nature, then currently human pathogenic hu-mans could memetically mutate to come to matter.

But I'm guessing none of my one hundred guesses as to whose lives matter most would be judged correct. But humans don't get to decide what matters. Nature decides. So listen to Nature who has all the answers. Stop listening to provocateurs, no matter how orgasmic or good it feels.

I could tell my wife what I think of antifa. If she were a Trumpster who enthusiastically attended Trump Rallies, I might go (as an anthropological outing), but either way, if I told her or anyone what I think of their tribal consensus, I could not be suffered to live if I made it impossible to be ignored. Maybe humans could just say 'no' to belief-based certitudes, even though they haven't yet.

Bright lives matter. Or not, I don't know. So should I join the counter BLM protesters? Maybe I should love and understand them both, and thereby be delivered from my psychosis (partially). But I'm an ignorant know-nothing from the hood who just doesn't get it. Another pathetic r_xev olutionary. When the revolution comes, I'll be the first put up against the wall. Or not, as I could be wrong about everything, unlike all the other storytelling animals. If my r_xevolution were to come, there would be belief therapists on every corner, but only for a time as when their job was done they would have better things to do aiding Nature restorancy.

8/22/20 Note to file: For the left-leaning there are several movements to champion that:

Are anti-capitalist, anti-individualist, anti-democratic, anti-American, and seek to remake the world in their own image.
They seek to erase and rewrite history, destroy and rebuild social institutions, and overthrow (remake) political and economic systems.
Their unwavering allegiance is to identity politics, ideological conformity and mass movement absolutism.
They are seductive, appealing to marginalized victims (while fanning the flames of victimhood) who see themselves (through no fault of their own they are assured) as getting the shorter end of the stick of privilege and prosperity, and so must have more.
For all problems there are solutions, political, and they have them.
They look their best dressed in sheep's clothing.
Those who dare criticize them are publicly shamed or canceled and fraudulently charged with being disagreeable, i.e. wrong, evil, not woke to the ideological narrative.
They are masters of strategic doublespeak.
Once those in the out-group have been established as a threat, they are automatically dehumanized and their destruction becomes a virtuous act of self-defense.
All are united by some strain of anti-Semitism.
They demand a radical and sustainable redistribution of wealth that empowers them.
They tell stories to each other to make sense of their social reality and truly believe that their actions are righteous.
They begin as street-led movements whose members, whether clerics or activists, see themselves as grassroots revolutionaries—not as reformers.
They see themselves as being above the law, driven by a feeling of belonging to a larger than life mission.
Driven by conviction, they tear down historical statues, ban books, rename institutions, and turn opponents into unpersons.
They share with their equal but opposite counterparts a clear vision that confrontation will lead to civil war and they, being the righteous ones, will win (their opposite differs as to who wins).
They are victim-obsessed, ethnocentric struggles that frame every difference of outcome in terms of identity, whether in terms of political or religious certitudes, race, cultural or tribal identity.
They are the commissars of the thought police, the connoisseurs of cultural demagoguery.
Whether out of allegiance or fear, moderates tend, as the pendulum swings, to validate or reject their narrative.
They are intolerant of any ideological diversity.
They support the censoring of language to turn complex, critical, nuanced thought into Newspeak.
They attempt to regulate speech within or outside of government, media, or the private sector to limit speech and thought among those who fail to self-censor.

1/27/21 Note to file: For a note of sanity among a cacophony of insanity, there is Daryl Davis, a compassionate revolutionary. His Wikipedia page offers many clues as to how he survived being brought up in modern techno-industrial society, unlike almost everyone else. Other ten-year-olds may be sane, but he managed to retain some grasp of reality and not be subsumed into one ideology or another.

Daryl's father, a retired senior Foreign Service officer, believed that his son engaged with the Klan because he needed to make sense of their hatred, to seek common ground, that his son "has done something that I don't know any other black American, or white American, has done." Father knows best. Not being a follower makes it much more likely to not be misled.

As Daryl says, he didn't convert anyone. Faced with reality, the what-is in front of their face, they converted themselves. This is what works. Daryl is not a scientist, but what he does is citizen science. "What I have come to find to be the greatest and most effective and successful weapon that we can use, known to man, to combat such adversaries as ignorance, racism, hatred, violence, [error and illusion] is also the least expensive weapon, and the one that is the least used by Americans. That weapon is called communication." Nobel Peace Prize anyone?

Davis is a Socrates: self-education without being schooled, doubt, inquiry, and exposure to what's out there beyond the prattleverse we now live in. No guns or bombs required. No 'us' vs 'them' imagined solutions. His assumption is that no two people are different in kind, and I'm guessing he would agree, considering the evidence, that humans are not different in kind from any other animal/plant/metazoan/protist/prokaryote or virus.

Whether prions or viruses are 'life' or 'living' beings, or White people are human, we can communicate about that and maybe agree we don't know enough to have an opinion. We hubris hu-mans are not functional humans as our pre-empire building ancestors would likely agree if they could view how we hu-mans of NIMH live, especially in overdensity urbanscapes, for a time.

Daryl, as benefactor of humankind, offers a video for consideration.

There are the right-leaning extremists who are not anti-capitalist, anti-individualist, anti-democratic, anti-American, but they also seek to remake the world in their own image. On all other points they are the same.

No human capable of joining a mass movement can see the above as applying to themselves or their tribal others. See Eric Hoffer’s book ‘The True Believer’ (or history) who speculated that a mass movement could do more good than harm, but couldn't convincingly name one that had.

I once had concerns about the emerging regressive left's ideology turning into another Cultural Revolution, but the term has now been embraced by the right-winged as a pejorative term for all liberals who by their reckoning are all regressive leftists. So forget any repetitive use of words in Newspeak as they change from mouth to mouth and from month to month. Reality is more about seeing/listening than thinking/opining or chant and cant.

<!--

If race is a distraction, as claimed, then the following should be commented out. My experience is that narratives of race are so politicized that calling into question anyone's certitudes is viewed as an attack, sending their amigdyla's into overdrive instead of their PFC's. But I endeavor to understand.

Are we not quite living in a colorblind society yet? Is the meme 'free, white, and 21' offensive? Is it still perceived as maybe a good thing by some? Is it a less common claim now than in 1965? Was it a less commonly celebrated fact in 1965 than it was in 1865? Did racism come to America in the 17th century, climax in the 19th, and is it fading, however painfully slowly, over the last few generations? Are you (if over 30 years old) less racist (prone to color-think) than your parents (or their generation)? Do police tend to view being Black as associated with being more suspectable? Have police been acquitted when they should have been imprisoned? If told to increase the number of arrests for marijuana possession by their chief of police (who was told to do so by a local politician), does this result in police (regardless of their skin color) meeting their 'quota' as quick and easy as possible by shaking down poor kids just hanging (who happen to be 'of color') instead of those coming out of a prep school wearing ties (whose parents have lawyers and deep pockets as the police department has learned the hard way)? Does the dynamics of police behavior in response to a political demand for more pot arrests result in more people of color being arrested than preppy (mostly) white kids? Is this an example of systemic structural racism? Should we demand more and better police training? Short answers: yes. Should cities burn? Not so sure. Is the ideal of a colorblind society still on track? No, as politicizing issues (real or perceived) polarizes and renormalizes division/conflict. For a better view: Neil deGrasse Tyson.

The following paragraph is from Wikipedia's article on societal racism, aka structural racism. I read the last bit maybe 10 times and couldn't parse it into reality speak:

'A society, even a "colorblind" society, can be structured in a way that perpetuates racism and racial inequality even if its individual members do not hold bigoted views about members of other racial groups. Society can still effectively exclude racially disadvantaged people from decision-making or make choices that have a disparate impact on them. For example if colorblind peoples actively advocate the removal of racist laws in one country toward a marginalized people, but not another one with a higher population or level of persecution toward that same marginalized people then consequently more of said marginalized people would be persecuted by color blindness's regional antipathy as opposed to how an active embrace of all races of the world at the level of the individual to the level of all humanity a color "sightedness" as opposed to "blindness" would oppose the racism of both countries at the same time.'

So when all else fails, deconstruct (and swimming in muddy water took me over a week).

A society, even a "colorblind" society, can be structured [can be by whom? Perhaps 'a colorblind society may be, for historical reasons, structured by prior dynamics'].

in a way that perpetuates racism and racial inequality even if its individual members do not hold bigoted views about members of other racial groups. [Premise: A passing alien, wishing to be helpful, magically (as would seem to the backward who are oblivious to the alien's presence) eliminates all ability to focus on racial variations (which would include freckles) whether for or against, just as having or not having freckles is not a basis for tribal identity (but could be), i.e. all humans become colorblind in that while freckles and skin/hair color can be perceived, no tribal narrative is added, so concepts such as 'racism and racial inequality' would be meaningless apart for the historical conjecture that their ancestors viewed one another via some sort of hypothetical 'color sightedness'. Populations of disadvantaged may suffer from lactose or alcohol intolerance, or experience a 60 percent incidence of clinical obesity and a host of related ailments (e.g. DM2) when given access to the standard American diet, but racism is not the cause, nor is protesting racism on the streets a solution. Inequality may exist such that, for historical or prehistorical reasons, those without freckles earn half as much on average, have a higher incidence of obesity, or are more likely to marry someone with freckles, but in a colorblind society no one would think to speak of frecklism or assert that the problems of the afreckled are due to being discriminated against by frecklists such that, if the injustice is not solved NOW!, then cities will burn.]

Society can still effectively exclude racially disadvantaged people from decision-making or make choices that have a disparate impact on them. [Choice and intent implied, 'society can... exclude'. In a colorblind society there can be no racially disadvantaged people, only disadvantaged people for reasons that could be genetic, environmental, or historical (which could include prior racism), but only current disadvantage would matter. An alternative narrative: 'society may reflect prior system dynamics such as when male atavisms, e.g. dominance and aggression during the empire-building of the past 10K years, was selected for'.]

For example if colorblind peoples actively advocate the removal of racist laws in one country toward a marginalized people [so one newly colorblinded country corrects for prior color-think by changing laws as expected and there would be no advocacy as by definition there are no ('bad') colorsighted to oppose and advocate for keeping them or pass new laws to redress legacy issues ('good' colorsighted) based on race (issues would be addressed but race and freckles would be irrelevant)]

but not another one [but another newly colorblinded country does not, through some oversight or disinterest, change legacy laws that would not be enforced]

with a higher population or level of persecution toward that same marginalized people, [larger population, higher level of persecution prior to becoming colorblind, which is of demographic and historical interest, but only real, as distinct from perceived, issues would be addressed]

then consequently more of said marginalized people would be persecuted by color blindness's regional antipathy [the cause of perceived 'persecution' is a colorblind society's antipathy about narratives about race? Or maybe a colorblind society would deal with actual issues, such as attempting to live in vastly too dense populations, species extinction/ecocide, overpopulation, environmental degradation/overshoot, overconsumption, mental illness/behavioral dysfunction, climate change, pending collapse of complex society and the use of harmful technology, e.g. cars, smartphones..., but no, let's talk about (and protest) perceived racism instead]

as opposed to how an active embrace of all races of the world [which would be impossible in a colorblind society and pointless. Every race has its _______ Race Day and everyone who can gets the day off to celebrate that race. And then what? Address Calhounian and Malthusian concerns? Or maybe humans could embrace love and understanding instead of tribal memes of racial variation, whether for or against, and consider real solutions]

at the level of the individual to the level of all humanity a color "sightedness" as opposed to "blindness" would oppose the racism of both countries at the same time. [So the two colorblind societies are racist societies because they fail to somehow change society so populations of homeless or billionaires, of mentally ill or the politically active, of obesity or longevity, etc. are racially representative of the total population. But a color conscious society is not racist because they alone, the liberal, will work to insure that there are as many Black billionaires per 100K Blacks as among Whites, then after the scourge of racism has been eliminated, maybe inequality can be addressed when the legacy of racism is corrected by those who should be in power to pass laws that will favor those having ancestors previously discriminated against. The need to remain colorsighted is to address past inequalities/sins/privilege, which is the other side of the racism coin—they are for zero tolerance of negative racism (i.e. the Right leaning White supremacists, so if slavery is reinstituted there had better be a representative number of White slaves, or more to redress the historical imbalance. Positive racism is not negative racism, which is against any alleged equality.

There is nothing necessarily racist about slavery. When fossil-fueled energy slaves are no more, anyone wanting to sort of live like a 21st century American will demand the return of slavery, or wage slaves serving elite's short-term self interests, but based on race. The positive progressive racists will demand that most of their wage slaves (doing onerous work) be White to balance historical racism (ideally most plantation owners will be Black until Whites have learned their lesson).

What percentage of the US population are white supremacists wanting to be served by 'people of color' (actual, not as imagined)? What fraction of one percent? For true believers, racists are legion (all who disagree with them), and no evidence need apply—racists, the new commies, are everywhere (and I am one who has benefited from a system of white supremacy but am not interested in fighting racism by voting/putting the anti-racists/fascists into power, therefore I am a white supremacist who, when the revolution comes, will be among the first to be put against the wall). So with racism: some are for, some against. And some think it is a crock of shit, i.e. a pathology having two Janus faces of racism that seem different. Race is a distraction.

There is unsustainable inequality. Making 15 dollars an hour a maximum wage ($10/hr being the minimum wage), and eliminating unearned income, would reduce over-consumption and inequality. But no one, Far Right, Right, Middle, Left, Far Left likes any 'real solutions' that could actually change society (or allow humans to live properly with the planet).]

So the paragraph mentions the obvious alternative to racism/frecklism/tribal identity memes to end up, after enough obfuscation is added, to conclude that color sightedness (progressive racism) is actually a good and essential thing. This tortured line of justification serves to keep old racism alive and central (and overrated) as it provides the Left leaning tribes an essential narrative they need to justify their existence—why they are different from the putatively racist Right.

If there were no God, theologians would be out of a job. If there were no racism, progressive liberals and most others on the Left leaning ideological spectrum (especially Far) would loose a major issue to be against and work tirelessly for change via policies that only they could enact (over the dead bodies of the Right leaning who, like the Left, are mostly White in the USA, but over the decades have realized that Blacks and Whites and others can all serve the system, whether as low-paid service workers, generals, CEOs, politicians, or presidents, and so support continued transition to a colorblind society except for a few pathetic White and Black supremacists on the fringe who are for racism and the reinstatement of slavery provided it is the other race that is enslaved).

To exist or persist, ideological tribes must seek power and all need stories to explain why. Racism is so entrenched, systemic, ideologically institutionalized, that the old world needs to burn, baby, burn to make way for the new world, which is an old story told by those on the far extremes of the political bell curve. Racism, thinking in color is a psycho-social pathology (i.e. a crock of shit). Try thinking in systems instead, bitches.

Of slight interest, along the lines of societal racism, are the views of the co-founder of Black Lives Matter (BLM) Toranto and recipient of a Canadian government-sanctioned “Young Women in Leadership Award” in 2018 meant to encourage women to run for public office. She is also founder of the Black Liberation Collective Canada. She is a sought after speaker at universities. Per York University:

Yusra Khogali is a daughter of a Sudanese diaspora from Regent Park, Toronto. She is a black feminist multi-disciplinary educator, writer, performance artist, activist, public intellectual, emcee and grassroots community organizer. She co-founded the Black Lives Matter Toronto movement that has shifted the current political landscape of Canada by actively working to dismantle all forms of anti-Black racism. Khogali also co-founded the Black Liberation Collective Canada, a Black student movement which works to create infrastructure for Black students around the globe to build power, using an intersectional lens, to eliminate anti-Blackness on campus. She completed her master of arts degree in social justice education at the University of Toronto Ontario Institute for Studies in Education with a research focus on Black diaspora, Black African, anti-colonial, Trans*feminist Liberation thought.

Prior to becoming such a raising star, she was known for her progressive views which, with occasional moderation to avoid distracting from the cause, she continues to espouse. From a 2015 social media offering to her supporters who look to her for leadership:

Whiteness is not humxness. In fact, white skin is sub-humxn. All phenotypes exist within the black family and white people are a genetic defect of blackness. White people have a higher concentration of enzyme inhibitors that suppress melanin production. They are genetically deficient because: melanin is present at the inception of life, melanin is directly linked to fertility and the humxn reproductive system, melanin is directly linked to strong bones, melanin is directly linked to the strength of the nervous system, melanin is directly linked to the strength of senses such as vision and hearing, melanin is directly linked to the strength of neuro systems affecting capacities like intelligence, memory, and creativity, melanin enables black skin to capture light and hold it in its memory mode which reveals that blackness converts light into knowledge.

Melanin directly communicates with cosmic energy.

This is why the indigeneity of all humxnity comes from blackness. We are the first and strongest of all humans and our genetics are the foundation of all humxnity.

Melanin is essential for the efficient performance of all the body's natural functions.

THEREFORE

White people are recessive genetic defects. This is factual.

White people need white supremacy as a mechanism to protest their survival as a people because all they can do is produce themselves. Black people simply through their dominant genes can literally wipe out the white race if we had the power to.

It is why white supremacy as an imperial system thrives. It tries to control, suppresses and destroy our existence in blackness because we are a threat to the genetic annihilation of white people.

Do you ever wonder how black people after centuries of colonial violence, genocide and destruction - no matter what systems created to make us extinct...how we keep coming back?

It is because we are superhumxns.

For more current progressive thinking:

That someone has such racist views is commonplace. That they are overlooked by the racists in the government, media, and universities is of concern, evidence of systemic racism.

-->

Back to Home Page

Soltech designs logo

Contact Eric Lee